Think i might just have a nap for 2 weeks until Spring properly arrives, and we get a new owner.

7 minutes ago, coco said:

It is wrong, but i blame the BBC journo who wrote it. He means the initial freeze on assets put the sale of the club on hold" "put" is past tense.

 

 

correct - bbc journo was less than clear, but no need for those reading to jump to assumptions. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

Edited March 12, 20224 yr by nonotnowjim

The directorship ban is probably necessary from a legal standpoint, but it's all rather embarrassing for the EPL as it puts into question EPL ownership rules.

21 minutes ago, coco said:

It is wrong, but i blame the BBC journo who wrote it. He means the initial freeze on assets put the sale of the club on hold" "put" is past tense.

 

 

What you are saying a journo is not always 100% accurate in what they write?  Shocking!

25 minutes ago, terraloon said:

So let’s talk about Afghanistan and Iraq or how about Libya?.The irony is that most Governments, particularly the US and Uk, will apply one yardstick when it suits and another when it doesn’t.

L

Terraloon you hit the nail on the head. 

Western governments do as they please when it benefits them. Not for humanitarian reasons or the crap they spew. 

If only  People follow history and scrape a little beneath the surface, the angle and evidence is clear as day that it filters through a blindfold. 

1 minute ago, abister1 said:

Terraloon you hit the nail on the head. 

Western governments do as they please when it benefits them. Not for humanitarian reasons or the crap they spew. 

If only  People follow history and scrape a little beneath the surface, the angle and evidence is clear as day that it filters through a blindfold. 

And in the West where you live you are free to say that in public, without fear of arrest or worse, go to Moscow, NK, China, and many other countries where they do not have that freedom, see how they live under oppression.

9 minutes ago, coco said:

The directorship ban is probably necessary from a legal standpoint, but it's all rather embarrassing for the EPL as it puts into question EPL ownership rules.

It may be a subtle difference but the test is  about ownership and indeed being a director. It’s not exclusively about being a director but the point I was trying to make is that it’s not accurate reporting.

As a total aside I have just read a review of someone who is questioning the potential for RA to actually 1) Challenge the manner in which the sale is in effect being forced and indeed the constraints HM Govt have insisted on and )2 After the event either he or his beneficiary sue for damages  in respect of the forced sale . In other words there is proof, it seems,  that prior to the invasion he could realistically have expected say £2 billion but the sale could well go through for hundreds on millions less.

What a blooming mess

 

8 minutes ago, abister1 said:

Terraloon you hit the nail on the head. 

Western governments do as they please when it benefits them. Not for humanitarian reasons or the crap they spew. 

If only  People follow history and scrape a little beneath the surface, the angle and evidence is clear as day that it filters through a blindfold. 

I read quite an alarming article the other day that was detailing what happened to Russian that we’re living in Ukraine post 2014 and indeed how their has been massive issues in the two regions that were the catalyst to the current conflict.

Now I can’t condone the invasion but the US &UK guaranteed Ukraine that if they gave up their nuclear weapons in 2014 that we would provide military support going forward as that didn’t mean just weapons.

I just don’t see how we can intervene but let’s not pretend for one second that this sort of conflict couldn’t have been foreseen.

“[There is no chance of Chelsea being allowed to] “carry on as normal. They’ve got to live in the real world. People are getting bombed and losing their lives in another country.”

 

-Whitehall source; source: Telegraph

 

Aye they are indeed, how about all those people being bombed in Yemen by Newcastles main owner? I guess not "all lives matter" eh?

Or all those civilians killed when the US and the UK invaded Iraq under the guise to remove the terror of "weapons of mass distruction". Or was it to claim their oil?

Also how about the civilian women raped by soldiers during said invasion? That ok too?

 

 

Edited March 12, 20224 yr by axman2526

9 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Whitehall source;

 

 

44 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

correct - bbc journo was less than clear, but no need for those reading to jump to assumptions. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

Yes, I guess that a PhD and an MSc, plus 25 years of scientific research haven’t helped me to develop a critical thinking of the high level and standards of the Eton chums.

But hey, all good, I’m sorry if I have annoyed anyone in here. I’m just a bit pissed off with the blatant hypocrisy of our society and I think that I am a bit annoyed by the whole f**ked up situation. So again, sorry if I’ve said anything that has annoyed anyone. I hate wars and the pain that all bring to other human beings that are innocent of the f**ked up political and economic interests. And that also includes the wars led by our illuminated politicians in the west, we are not a better civilisation than any other, let’s not be European-centric, it’s like believing that the sun goes around the earth, just not true.
 

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-liverpool-saviour-broughton-eyes-key-role-in-chelsea-rescue-bid-12564150

Sir Martin getting involved. Interesting part is he would want fans to be part of ownership.

2 minutes ago, RMH said:

I hate wars

Try saying that in Russia or China, .....special operations 👍

 

I particularly like Sir Martin saying the government cannot allow us to go in to administration as that would cost the Ukraine war victims 500mill or more. Given the UK raised 200mill to send over you would think 500mill might be useful to war victims no?

Or is it more important to punish the club Mr. GOVERNMENT?

3 minutes ago, coco said:

Try saying that in Russia or China, .....special operations 👍

 

Yes, I can say it here, but I can’t go to watch Chelsea away while the government is sending £200m pounds a day to Russia for their oil and gas, which are helping finance their invasion. Great minds thinking we are taking great measures and leading by the example….

But as I said, probably won’t come into this topic for a while as the heat is running high and we are not going to see eye to eye. Again, sorry to anyone that feels offended.

46 minutes ago, coco said:

And in the West where you live you are free to say that in public, without fear of arrest or worse, go to Moscow, NK, China, and many other countries where they do not have that freedom, see how they live under oppression.

And that is a good reason to call bull when I see it. 

Should I shy into the relative comforts of where I live and stay quiet because the government is so gracious it won't arrest me or worse, and not call out hypocrisy and evil when I see it?

 

 

3 minutes ago, abister1 said:

And that is a good reason to call bull when I see it. 

Should I shy into the relative comforts of where I live and stay quiet because the government is so gracious it won't arrest me or worse, and not call out hypocrisy and evil when I see it?

 

 

Nobody is asking you to 'shy away', you can call out bull whenever you like, carry on, that's your prerogative.

4 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

More uninformed nonsense....Of course the government has not "gone out of its way to target Chelsea"!!!! Get a grip!

The government has actually been lenient in allowing Chelsea to continue playing. As per the sanctions law/regime,  the UK government could have insisted Chelsea (as an asset of Romans) was frozen....instead they acted with leniency and allow us to continue to operate.

Sorry you are missing the point it’s not abt what the law states.. this entire sanctions game is an eye wash.. the Uk govt continues to trade and buy gas from russia .. the war started in February but what was done prior to that .. appeasement appeasement and appeasement..

Do you really think any oligarch has enough influence over Putin and Kremlin.. banning oligarchs and sanctioning Chelsea is an ineffective yet populist measure that gives them a way to show action when in reality there is nothing that they can do now because they didn’t act when they needed to when George’s happened or when Crimea happened ..  

 

HH

‘More faces than Big Ben.’

This saying seems appropriate, for some of those rushing ‘to take the so called moral high ground…’

Edited March 12, 20224 yr by erskblue

4 minutes ago, Jangz said:

Sorry you are missing the point it’s not abt what the law states.. this entire sanctions game is an eye wash.. the Uk govt continues to trade and buy gas from russia .. the war started in February but what was done prior to that .. appeasement appeasement and appeasement..

Do you really think any oligarch has enough influence over Putin and Kremlin.. banning oligarchs and sanctioning Chelsea is an ineffective yet populist measure that gives them a way to show action when in reality there is nothing that they can do now because they didn’t act when they needed to when George’s happened or when Crimea happened ..  

 

I agree with this. None of us knows what RA's relationship with the Kremlin and Putin really is. Maybe he is up to his neck in it - there's little actual evidence either way. But, he is a household name in the UK - more so than any other Russian billionaire and so hitting him helps the government look like they are doing something. I'm not convinced it'll make the slightest difference to the war in Ukraine or the UK's future relationship with Russia. With global gas and oil prices where they are now, European countries are paying the Russians around $1bn per day for energy - that's happening while we are all being told the economic sanctions will bring the Russian economy and state to its knees. Doesn't make sense to me.     

21 minutes ago, Jangz said:

Sorry you are missing the point it’s not abt what the law states.. this entire sanctions game is an eye wash.. the Uk govt continues to trade and buy gas from russia .. the war started in February but what was done prior to that .. appeasement appeasement and appeasement..

Do you really think any oligarch has enough influence over Putin and Kremlin.. banning oligarchs and sanctioning Chelsea is an ineffective yet populist measure that gives them a way to show action when in reality there is nothing that they can do now because they didn’t act when they needed to when George’s happened or when Crimea happened ..  

 

I do not argue your (or anyones) views on sanctions, and the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of them. You are free to have any opinion you like on them.....They may be futile and have zero impact...

...But....

...whatever your views on sanctions as a whole, it doesn't change the fact that Chelsea FC has NOT been targeted. The post of mine that you quoted, was a direct response to the claim that the UK government had "gone out of its way to target Chelsea". That statement is simply not true.

My point was simple, and remains. The UK government, as per the sanctions law in the UK, were perfectly entitled to freeze or seize Chelsea FC. The UK government decided to do the opposite, and instead showed leniency towards the club, but letting us continue to operate. Making statements like "Chelsea have been targeted" or "Chelsea have been sanctioned" is simply tribalism (at best), disinformation or plain ignorance. I know it doesn't feel like it right now, but things are nowhere near as bad as they could have been.

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

I agree with this. None of us knows what RA's relationship with the Kremlin and Putin really is. Maybe he is up to his neck in it - there's little actual evidence either way. But, he is a household name in the UK - more so than any other Russian billionaire and so hitting him helps the government look like they are doing something. I'm not convinced it'll make the slightest difference to the war in Ukraine or the UK's future relationship with Russia. With global gas and oil prices where they are now, European countries are paying the Russians around $1bn per day for energy - that's happening while we are all being told the economic sanctions will bring the Russian economy and state to its knees. Doesn't make sense to me.     

There is very little public evidence. Agreed.

Having worked in the area of UK sanctions in the past, I can say that the evidential threshold in the UK for them to be implemented is very high. Rumor or speculation alone is NOT sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

I have said already, but these decisions, in my experience, are not made on a whim or to make headlines. They are taken after hours of consideration, engagement and legal advice. Given Roman has the best lawyers that money can buy, I very much doubt the UK government have all of a sudden thought "f**k it - lets sanction Roman and 6 other billionaires, and get sued later, simply to make a point"

 

Article on the Todd, makes him sound the more likely owner and the one most likely to keep us competitive:

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2022/3/12/22974167/todd-boehly-the-best-we-can-hope-for-to-not-disappear-back-into-the-pack-report

4 hours ago, JM7 said:

I read that it makes no difference and sale

 continues as planned 

Totally agree that’s my understanding also 👍